On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:34:42PM -0500, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/isolation.c b/kernel/isolation.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..68a9f7457bc0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kernel/isolation.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
> +/*
> + * linux/kernel/isolation.c
> + *
> + * Implementation for task isolation.
> + *
> + * Distributed under GPLv2.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/mm.h>
> +#include <linux/swap.h>
> +#include <linux/vmstat.h>
> +#include <linux/isolation.h>
> +#include <linux/syscalls.h>
> +#include "time/tick-sched.h"
> +
> +cpumask_var_t task_isolation_map;
> +
> +/*
> + * Isolation requires both nohz and isolcpus support from the scheduler.
> + * We provide a boot flag that enables both for now, and which we can
> + * add other functionality to over time if needed. Note that just
> + * specifying "nohz_full=... isolcpus=..." does not enable task isolation.
> + */
> +static int __init task_isolation_setup(char *str)
> +{
> + alloc_bootmem_cpumask_var(&task_isolation_map);
> + if (cpulist_parse(str, task_isolation_map) < 0) {
> + pr_warn("task_isolation: Incorrect cpumask '%s'\n", str);
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
> + alloc_bootmem_cpumask_var(&cpu_isolated_map);
> + cpumask_copy(cpu_isolated_map, task_isolation_map);
> +
> + alloc_bootmem_cpumask_var(&tick_nohz_full_mask);
> + cpumask_copy(tick_nohz_full_mask, task_isolation_map);
> + tick_nohz_full_running = true;
How about calling tick_nohz_full_setup() instead? I'd rather prefer
that nohz full implementation details stay in tick-sched.c
Also what happens if nohz_full= is given as well as task_isolation= ?
Don't we risk a memory leak and maybe breaking the fact that
(nohz_full & task_isolation != task_isolation) which is really a requirement?
> +
> + return 1;
> +}
> +__setup("task_isolation=", task_isolation_setup);
> +
> +/*
> + * This routine controls whether we can enable task-isolation mode.
> + * The task must be affinitized to a single task_isolation core or we will
> + * return EINVAL. Although the application could later re-affinitize
> + * to a housekeeping core and lose task isolation semantics, this
> + * initial test should catch 99% of bugs with task placement prior to
> + * enabling task isolation.
> + */
> +int task_isolation_set(unsigned int flags)
> +{
> + if (cpumask_weight(tsk_cpus_allowed(current)) != 1 ||
> + !task_isolation_possible(smp_processor_id()))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + current->task_isolation_flags = flags;
> + return 0;
> +}
What if we concurrently change the task's affinity? Also it seems that preemption
isn't disabled, so we can also migrate concurrently. I'm surprised you haven't
seen warnings with smp_processor_id().
Also we should protect against task's affinity change when task_isolation_flags
is set.
> +
> +/*
> + * In task isolation mode we try to return to userspace only after
> + * attempting to make sure we won't be interrupted again. To handle
> + * the periodic scheduler tick, we test to make sure that the tick is
> + * stopped, and if it isn't yet, we request a reschedule so that if
> + * another task needs to run to completion first, it can do so.
> + * Similarly, if any other subsystems require quiescing, we will need
> + * to do that before we return to userspace.
> + */
> +bool _task_isolation_ready(void)
> +{
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
> +
> + /* If we need to drain the LRU cache, we're not ready. */
> + if (lru_add_drain_needed(smp_processor_id()))
> + return false;
> +
> + /* If vmstats need updating, we're not ready. */
> + if (!vmstat_idle())
> + return false;
> +
> + /* Request rescheduling unless we are in full dynticks mode. */
> + if (!tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) {
> + set_tsk_need_resched(current);
I'm not sure doing this will help getting the tick to get stopped.
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
